We all know that iNat staff and (some ?) iNat moderators have the right to close a topic. They sometimes do it very suddenly, which is ok as long as they take the time to do it well, notably when they apologize when needed.
Moderators should apologize when there is quite some evidence that they close a thread without fairly addressing the issues involved – no matter how often this happens and for how many different reasons.
They should apologize when their action looks like a way to attenuate or even cover questionable behavior of iNat moderators themselves. This is a conflict of interests, of course, and requires the strongest apologies .
Moderators should apologize when they behave improperly.
All that seems quite obvious to me. Yet please consider here just a very recent example of extensive failures to these expectations.
me : “As she went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes”
@tiwane “Regarding @trh_blue’s comment, I think she was referring to odole’s sarcastic sour grapes remark (at least it came off as sarcastic to me, as well as others) and that the topic has strayed quite a bit from its original question” […]
I am waiting for @tiwane to send me to prison for quoting moral satire fables for kids in the Forum. In the meantime I draw his attention to the fact that a satire is irony that illustrates truth and reality, which is supposed to be good for everybody, whereas sarcasm is the opposite : a way to distort truth and reality in order to be mean to someone.
Calling one “sarcastic” is strong! It requires among other things that one be shown to be mean to someone else, and that there is a distortion of truth. Saying “sarcastic” twice without any factual argument like here is quite remarkable. And sorry but the “I think” and the “at least to me” do not explain anything and sound quite neglectful.
Of course do not hesitate to explain how your feelings were hurt by me, as you suggest, and I will be happy to think on it, and will try to repair any mistake.
And @trh_blue why such a choice of terms like “derail”, why the usage of “try” as you do, and especially why the “watch !” command ? All these terms lie in-between calling people “drunk” and some kind of parent-to-kids-like way of talking, which hardly fits between you and me or anyone else in the Forum.
Such three offensive meanings in a row are another remarkable something, especially coming from a moderator.
This I would call the bateau ivre-kind of moderation, with hardly anything of the poem’s elegance and greatness– this analogy is just meant to be a colorful reminder to avoid overtly dismissive kinds of talking.
The multiple highly unhappy statements above were made in the name of iNaturalist, and that should be recognized explicitly and repaired or corrected accordingly. Perhaps by apologizing and/or by editing those statements.
In particular I would be grateful, @tiwane, if you would answer my flag on your post and the suggested edits to such post. I did not receive any reply yet, after 24hr and I am not sure that it worked. In fact, it seems that I could not flag it as inappropriate.
I hope this helps and thank you very much for your time.
PS Should I apologize because I shifted the focus of the topic a little ? I do not think so. That happens all the time in the Forum, and furthermore when I did this, the initial discussion was fully over, and I did say upfront that I wanted to expand it providing reasons to do so. To me a reasonable moderator could have suggested to move the new part of that thread to a new topic. And moving it was a possibility when the topic was being closed.